Both names and tripcodes are optional. You can choose any name you want, or you can post as anonymous by leaving this field empty.

Tripcodes are a way to identify yourself between posts without having to register with the site.
To use a tripcode, enter your name as ‹name›#‹key›.
You can choose anything you want as the key –
it is private and will never be shown to other posters or stored on the server.

If you want a tripcode containing specific words, you can download a program designed to search for tripcodes,
such as Tripcode Explorer.

Email

Entering an email is optional.

There are also code words you can enter here which perform certain actions when you submit your post.
A few of these are sage, which lets you post without bumping a thread, and noko and noko50, which redirect you to the thread or the last 50 posts instead of the main board after you post.

noko and noko50 can be used at the same time as an email address by typing ‹email›#noko.

Would legalizing all drugs be a solution to the war on drugs that America has been losing for the past few years? Would all kids become crack hoes? What do y'all feel?

I think it would be totally helpful, especially so people won't be thrown in jail for stupid reasons like possession, using, or selling drugs and leave jail for the folks who deserve it. Also, for people to have more control over what they put in their own bodies. If someone wants to smoke crack or shoot up heroin then I say more power to them, it's their own life and they should be more than able to.

>"Glenn Greenwald, the attorney and author who conducted the research, told Time: “Judging by every metric, drug decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success. It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country."

Yes. Drug laws ruin lives, right down to the source. There are farmers in the middle east who are forced to grow the constituent plants in drugs to earn a living by their culture, and then imprisoned for life by that same culture. It's absurd. Plus, at least legalizing it would mean it could be regulated.

The recent tragic events in Raleigh have brought an outpouring of sympathetic messages and gifts to Michael Morones and his parents from the brony community -- after the fact. Is there something we could have done beforehand, and should do in the future, to help support or defend kids and others who get persecuted in various ways for being fans of this show?

>>77154There was nothing any of us could do beforehand, since it was not public knowledge.

Furthermore, what would you propose as preventative measure? Is a collection of bronies - internet geeks, to be honest, many of whom are under 21 - really going to be able to influence bullying in schools across the USA and across the world?

No.

Generally I'm an optimist and I don't like cynicism, but I really think that the idea of bronies somehow being able to have an influence on bullying in schools is a complete pipe-dream.

As for "supporting" bullied children, that is unwise. It is far, FAR better for a bullied child to be supported by their parents or their teachers, not by unknown people of unspecified age and background across the internet. It is one thing for bronies to get actively involved in charity work, rights and tolerance and all that, but where other people's children are involved, that is a complete no-go zone.

>>77143>Frankly, the corporate world needs a reminder that if they refuse to negotiate reasonable prices, people will just take what they need.

That seems like the sort of mindset that would only discourage a corporation from selling in that market. It is why PC gaming is starting to flounder, because pirating has discouraged them from making games for that market. (I don't want a subject change, just an example)

>That seems like the sort of mindset that would only discourage a corporation from selling in that market.

What does this matter to the markets they weren't going to sell to in the first place? It should have more or less no consequence to them.

It seems clear this drug was never intended for cancer stricken indians because they don't have the kind of money to afford its price. The overwhelming majority of people on this planet don't.

If we are really trying to provide what patients need and we are asking if the patient can afford the medicine, treatment, procedure etc and the answer is no, the next best question as a provider to ask is 'can they obtain it?'

I have a problem. A very major problem at that. One that relentlessly gnaws at my soul every single day of life. That problem is that I hate humans.

Not as in I merely dislike humans, or find them annoying or simply not worthwhile to interact with. I mean I HATE them. As in hate them to such degrees that mortal words cannot come close to fully enveloping the feelings of disgust, loathing, contempt, animosity, bitterness, revulsion, abhorrence, enmity, and outright hostility that I experience every time I even think of the word 'human'.

As you can imagine, the fact that I hold these feelings towards mankind whilst simultaneously being surrounded by 7 billion of them at any given time, poses a major detriment to my life - and makes me a very, VERY angry person.

Is there any way to resolve this issue of mine, preferably without all the time and effort it takes to become a supervillain and exterminate the fleas with some kind of doomsday device?

I'm missing something here- why? What is so different about humans than other animals? Why humans, specifically? All of them?

Why not go find a place of refuge somewhere where you'll never have to see another human again? Or does the very idea that they exist somewhere conflict with you? (Then, in the entire vastness of the universe, what would you make of the very likely existence of very humanlike species on some other far away corner of space?)

Does it have a philosophical basis or an emotional basis? Or perhaps it's a rationalisation?

To be honest, that is spectacularly illogical. Observing all of humanity in balance, I see not nearly enough grounds for disgust, loathing, contempt, animosity, bitterness, revulsion, abhorrence, enmity, or outright hostility. One particular problem is the superiority you exhibit, especially in your disgust, contempt, and revulsion. It's an unhealthy way of thinking.

But who am I to speak of a logical and healthy mind? I have spent a large chunk of my life with a very unhealthy mind that was incredibly illogical and bubbling with hatred. Not directed, like yours is, just blank hatred - which, when not turned on anything external, often turned on myself.

It's good that you confess it as a problem. If you'd come here and said "Why is humanity so hateable?" I'd say you're a douche and you need to rethink your opinion of the world. But I think you are right to acknowledge it as a problem, and that's the first step to solving it.

I'll suggest a few ideas. I have no professional qualifications but I do have some experience in cognitive behavioural therapy - that is, actively changing the way you think.

1) Think hard. Try to apply a bit of logic. Firstly, what's the point of hating 7 billion people? You'll never meet more than a few thousand and never know more than a few hundred. Even if you could meet them all, what would you do to them? Someone wise once said something like "Hating a person is like taking poison and expecting them to die". Your hatred is harming you far more than it harms them. Try hard to let go of your hate. Leave cynicism outside. Relax. Think about other things.

2) Do you have any close friends? A friend can reaffirm your faith in humanity. I know that friends are pretty much the number one thing to keep me out of depression. A friend can help to lighten your mood, and show you that people can be good, and nice. And also that doing good things with good people is more fun and productive than hating everyone. Also, you can tell your friend that you have a problem with hatred, and they can help you get over it.…

My dear /dis/,Of the various online realms in which I dwell, this has been by far one of the most consistently stimulating. Due in part to the inspiration you have caused me over the last year, and for the conclusions you've helped me draw, I have been able to form my own philosophies regarding this universe and our existence.

I'd like to posit an idea for you today.

"There is nothing more important that represents both the individual and the collective human experience, than knowledge."

I've approached this from various perspectives, mainly scientifically, psychologically, and philosophically. In regards to science, it represents the true systematic nature of determining 'what is' and 'why it is', as a product of reason and the scientific method. Through experimentation and observation, measurement and collectivized experiences from across the world, we've built libraries. Nowadays, a great deal of this information is housed as part of the series of servers and networks many of us connect ourselves to everyday. I know I cannot be the only one on this board of thinkers who has realized that the content of the internet reflects our most primal needs. Innate desires to tap into that raw knowledge determined and written about by scientists and leaders of various fields wane in the accessibility of trivia, but we know the value of a 'fact' old holds so much weight without the knowledge that supports it... don't we?

The appeal to our psyche is too vast and intertwined with philosophical thinking to get into today. I'll suffice by saying that our priorities and motivations shape our personalities, and there have been studies that show that the most curious of us, or high in 'openness to experience', thrive when we get what we want. …

You. I like you. I've always thought this way, but nobody has put it as succinctly as you have. I've dedicated my life towards learning as many things as I can. I've started with programming and I'm only moving forward from there.

What you're talking about IS epistemology. Welcome to the board, Erika~

In my conclusions there are four areas, and I would not say any one is more important than another.

Epistemology and knowledge, one flowing from the other. The body of scientific knowledge springs from the human conception of logic and mathematics. Common knowledge comes from conceptual metaphor and unconscious, automatic reasoning. Religious and ideological knowledge is perhaps grounded in acceptance of an authority.

Ethics and behaviour, one flowing from the other. The behaviour of a Stoic springs from the Stoic conception of virtue. The behaviour of a utilitarian from the utilitarian view of ethics. The behaviour of a Christian from Christian theology.

A while ago, I happened upon an interesting story, a story of racism. The person in question was talking about an experience he had in his younger years as an upper middle class (IIRC) black youth. The story was about how he felt pressured into looking for racism where it didn't exist, to the point where he verbally attacked a teacher or professor (I don't agree that he was completely undeserving of it, mind you).

This is an interesting topic and one that bears a bit of discussion, but the reason I'm bringing up the story in question is because I would like to introduce it as somewhat of a source for a post I'd like to make on the issue. Try as I might, however, I cannot find it.

If one of you have read it and can direct me to it, I would much appreciate it.

I did just get a lead, though: Losing the Race, by John McWhorter. I'm looking into it now. Whether it has the actual story for which I'm looking or not, it could be a very useful source, and it does look promising as containing that story. I need to do some more checking, though.

So in case you're still interested in this, it was something by Shelby Steele, an essay called "On Being Black and Middle Class"[l-adam-mekler.com] (links to a .doc file). I was looking through some old books while I was without internet for a while and found it in the same book in which I had found it the first time. My memory of it was a little inaccurate, but it's still an interesting read.

I'm definitely going to use some of John McWhorter's work in this discussion, but I'm also going to have to reference Shelby Steele.

>>76426You are oversimplifying things. The Egyptian Royalty viewed themselves as gods incarnate. Many royalty viewed themselves in similar fashions, either ordained by their supernatural figures or carrying some other reason to explain why they exist outside of and above the rest of the world.

Their acts of incest, bestiality and more that goes against biological, cultural and societal reasoning was done because they believed that they had a right to do them due to their special existence whatever that may be.

Murder might be wrong for a mortal, but not for one who is a god or ordained by god. In fact, they can reason that it is their right to do as they please with their subjects and with themselves and each other.

I feel that when presented with something that might give the impression of 'this is wrong' to them, they would only lash out and do it with a stronger vigor to prove that nothing is wrong for them to do so long as it is good for them.

>>76429>You are oversimplifying things. The Egyptian Royalty viewed themselves as gods incarnate. Many royalty viewed themselves in similar fashions, either ordained by their supernatural figures or carrying some other reason to explain why they exist outside of and above the rest of the world.

No I am providing an example. If in a single case incest occurs we can look at it and think about how it managed to happen. Viewing themselves as gods is the excuse they used. Folks on the ground would have had their own excuses and that fact does not make the example of the Royalty become meaningless.

>Their acts of incest, bestiality and more that goes against biological, cultural and societal reasoning was done because they believed that they had a right to do them due to their special existence whatever that may be.

And just how do you think "incest happens"? That sounds like a possible formula to weaken an instinct to me, though I don't personally know if that description is accurate. Every time incest happens there are reasons and no singe example is illegitimate. They all matter.

>Murder might be wrong for a mortal, but not for one who is a god or ordained by god. In fact, they can reason that it is their right to do as they please with their subjects and with themselves and each other.

Same story for murder. Every time it happens where are reasons and you can't just rule an example illegitimate because they are high ranking humans and not street level humans. Sure some of the reasons for the actions change, but the reasons and actions still exist and we can still talk about them as singular examples of incest. …

Sorry everyone but the site rules about explicit text still count here. Talking about sexual things is fine but if it starts sounding like you are narrating a porn then lines have been crossed. Derails into the explicit stuff from OP is also a problem.

If you want to have a thread about sex toys that would be the experiment that has not yet been run. We are trying to leave room for it but we still have the general rules to respect. Talking about them, not narrating your experience. I know it's tricky but it should be possible and over time we will find a balance.

In order to get to KYM, the kid would have to scroll (and I mean actually scroll) past much more likely sites, then to get to the pages that talk about explicit things, they'd have to scroll past several pages' worth of stuff that is, quite frankly, rather boring, then click on a very few specific set of links. Keep in mind that this wouldn't actually lead them to pony porn, just some fandom clop-related terminology that would use terms with which a four year old wouldn't actually be familiar.

>That's a textbook strawman.

Actually, no. It's called "recognizing a common theme." Pinkie Pony, IIRC, posted the first of these stories, and since then, quite a few people have started sending (usually anonymous) messages claiming the same thing. The stories follow a common theme, with some slight alterations. The vast majority of them refer to them finding it in an image search, and this story has all the same themes, but is missing that one detail. As an analogy, if I were to disprove an alien abduction story, would I then need to disprove one that followed all the same themes, but was missing one or two details?

>She thinks sex is gross? Well we live in a pretty puritanical culture and at four years old she's almost certainly been taught that her private parts are dirty and need to remain hidden. That could easily lead to her reaction. …

Note:Does this thread piss you off? That is a consequence of the nature of the subject for some of us. Unfortunately too often the consequences of that is sabotaged conversation. Like it or not this is discussion worth having and I for one am not willing to ignore it so if you want to comment in this thread take the time to actually read it. Once you have you will see how to handle it constructively and will hopefully have calmed down. Email me if you have any questions.!!Twilight

#Discussion

[i post this here because this is the only mature enough forum i know that can peacefully handle this discussion]

Pedophiles, in the last few centuries have been considered the worst scum and filth a human can be.

they are depicted as sick, twisted and demented hobos who do nothing but attempt to rape kids.

I know this sounds crass, but could someone give a summary? This conversation has been going on for over year, and there are multiple dissertations worth of conversation going on here. I just stumbled on this, I'd like to know other opinions, but I have a life, dammit.

>>77043I'm sympathetic, but I doubt that a summary is possible. It's a screwed up issue that society has tons of problems talking about, let alone finding good solutions for. As a result there is very little in terms of social consensus. As a result of that the opinions in here are really all over the place, similar to the rest of society (speaking from a US perspective here).

One bit of consensus on the professional front is that there is a difference between a pedophile and a child molester. The pedophile has an attraction, the child molester acts on that attraction. So society has to deal with the problem of how to interact with people that have an attraction that they never act on. Those people exist and are not criminals. The way that the issue gets skirted and freaked out about prevents this issue from being actually solved.

How the suffering breaks down in reality as far as objective sources are concerned there is less consensus on. My personal view is that certainly there is a social component. Everyone freaking out about a person having an experience that they do not understand will make someone feel worse about it, so going on like someone has been damaged will mess with someone (role-modeling courage about facing it and figuring it out is better, but pretending that the child's actual emotions are not there is always bad too. The reality of a persons emotions needs respected and moving on from there is complicated by whatever the reality looks like.)

In my view (so beware, there will be other opinions different from mine above), we humans are programmed to respond to elders as authority figures when we are young, and the young are absorbers of rules and social information. Engaging in sex with a child is tantamount to brainwashing and imprinting a child with an adult's sexual tastes, essentially using them for a sex toy because there can be no relationship of equals there. It's part of the reason that the young are not legally considered persons and allowed to get into contracts and such. They…

The entire thing is well written enough to warrant an entire read. And I'll admit that there are shows on Fox as much as there are shows elsewhere that are opinion focused more than fact focused. Bill O'Reilly and Hannity are examples of this. The only shows I would say is almost completely free of opinion are the ones that run prior to the Prime Time Hours. However, this is going to be the fact of the matter as people enjoy them. (You can't deny their massive ratings).

The reason why sources like NPR got higher answers is that they usually delve into international news more often than others.

You're thinking a little too closely along the lines of "it's a study so it's true." The survey questions are extremely important in a study like this. If the questions are about things that are of greater interest to one party, this can result in a biased survey.

As it is, however, the questions are mostly generic and reflect less of political issues and facts related to those issues and more just general political trivia. For example, this question: "K6B. It took a long time to get the final results of the Iowa caucuses for Republican candidates. In the end, who was declared the winner?" is mostly of interest to Iowans, which is a largely Democratic region in the first place and Democratic Iowans would be much more likely to know this than anyone in, say, Texas, a Republican stronghold. There are a few questions in there that do test political knowledge of the issues at hand, but considering how few questions there are, the existence of any that can be considered "political trivia" or slightly biased isn't exactly promising.

Furthermore, if you look at the breakdown, you'll see that Fox News watching Republicans are, in fact, more informed than the "no news" group. It's the Democrats watching Fox News that brought down the average. There was a similar effect with Republicans watching MSNBC, but it was less than that of the other, at least in international questions. In fact, anyone not crossing idealogies scored better than "no news" in both areas.

Preference. What a word to say aloud. A word in which has,it's definition literally in the word itself. Just look it up in a dictionary and you'll find this:

(Noun) A greater liking of one alternative over another or others.

Now, aside from the factual meaning, preference can mean so much more than what is written in a book. It is a word that connects with something so much greater: free will and human rights. The free will to choose, the right to having a say. This concept has been retold again and again throughout world history, constantly reminding us of who we are as the human race. Of course, throughout history, it has not always been that way; there was Times when a group of people would try to take that away from the human species, such as the Nazis (but they are for later conversation.) But many of the challenges that this world has faced were, again, created by choice and decision. What does this have to do with preference you may ask? It is like I said in the definition: the CHOOSING of one thing over another. The decision of choosing what/whom to pick. They both intersect with each other, like two vines in a vineyard. They may sound different, but once you look into the meaning, they are basically is alike. You may also ask: "Where did the idea of choice come from?" Religious people would say that the very first people on earth (Adam and Eve) were in all ways in the form of God and having the same qualities as God. One of these qualities was obviously choice, for God gave the couple the choice of either not eating the fruit, reproduce and be immortal, or eat the fruit and suffer the consequences. Adam and Eve obviously CHOSE to eat the fruit and suffered the consequences by becoming self conscious, mortal and eventually sent back to dust. To more realist people, the idea of choice came from the evolution of the human brain. We as humans, as grew, explored our minds and brains and learned over time of what we are capable of doing physically and mentally. But,as for myself, I don't really know how this subject was created. But it goes to that show you that in biblical and scientific terms, the power of choice has been around for as long as mankind has been…

I'd like to state that I'm actually playing devil's advocate here for the purpose of discussion, because no belief is worth holding if it can't be defended.>>77026But when you think about any given choice you have made, there are reasons why you made that choice rather than another. The practical reality of the situation, your emotional state at the time, your prior history with similar choices.

By manipulating one of these factors, through changing the situation so only one responce makes sense, or provoking a specific emotion at a specific time, or by conditioning you through brainwashing or torture, a person who understands your psychology can gain effectively total control over your actions. Arguaby this is the method and goal of totalitarian governments.

If your choice is always the predictable output from a number of inputs, what differentiates it from a very complex mathematical equation?

People like to complain about modern art, especially abstract or minimalistic works, claiming that they don't require any skill, therefore not art. While I'm not a modern art fan by any means, this annoys me because I think that while skill is often involved in the creation of art, art does not necessarily need to be reflective of skill.

Is the concept of art, then, entirely undefinable? Am I wrong to think that, since there are things we can clearly label "not art" and "art", there must be a rule, however subjective, to determine where something is relative to this spectrum?If not, what is this definition? Is it entirely subjective, or is there an objective quality that all art must possess?

I realize that there's not a one-size-fits-all dictionary-type definition, but I guess my question was more about whether art is definable by any means at all. …

>>75614>making your message more abstract in order to allow the audience to become part of the creation process, giving them the freedom to create new interpretations or meanings that are still rooted in the truth of the original intended message.That's what I was going for. I had a feeling that the audience's involvement was important in certain occasions, but couldn't think of a way to describe it. Then, I think, some art is primarily defined by what the artist wants his audience to see, and others by what the audience chooses to see.

Also, I didn't mean to sound like I wanted to give art an objective definition per se, just one that's more concrete than "people like it".>>75616>>75617>>75618Well, I don't think Diddo just made a crack head (ha) for the heck of it. It doesn't seem like he didn't have a point to make, but it's more likely that the point was for the audience to see their own message in it. I might interpret it as a metaphor for the dangers of substance abuse, someone else could possibly see it as "our animal side laid bare by comfortable excess". Although, admittedly, one is a heck of a lot easier to see than the other, an interference on the part of the artist in actually stating what the piece was about could destroy the element of limitation by the medium. It's counterproductive to the artist by telling people how to interpret the art.…

>>75627Like I said, I don't think there was a singular "point" he was trying to make ("I'm not trying to communicate a single idea, or induce a specific way of thinking"). Or, if there was, he doesn't want to impose that interpretation on the audience. Maybe the point was to not look at symbols in a purely conventional way. Symbols can represent plenty of different meanings.And, technically, prose is a subset of poetry.

I think that the issue is really that the term 'art' has been elevated to too high a standard in common use, and the root of many discussions of whether something is art or not really boil down to an attempt to dismiss a class of works, so that works that one wants to censor can be lumped in with that class of works and thereby lose the protection that people feel works of art deserve.

>>76962I'm opposed to Democracy because it's mostly mob rule anyway, can we change the term from Democracy to Constitutional Republic? At least when I'm speaking on it. Just a personal preference.

First, we need to address what Capitalism is. At it's core, Capitalism is merely an economic system where private ownership is the main ownership in trade, industry and the means of production. It is also an economic system where people are free to invest in those private ownerships with an expectation for a return at a later time. These people are known as 'Capitalists' because they devote 'Capital' to these private businesses to help them start up.

What this requires, however, is a Government that respects completely the right to private ownership and fights to fiercely defend it. These are typically governments that grant the most freedom, such as Constitutional Republics. So it isn't so much a paired system or one against the other. It is more that one system naturally follows the other.

I don't see capitalism as compatible with either democracy or freedom. Just tossing things around at random here, but...

Nor do I see capitalism as compatible with national sovereignty, as inevitably the private ownership grows big enough to expand into the nation's own political system and into other financial opportunities in foreign lands - even if they don't want it, such as the opium wars. You can only grow so much, so fast, in a limited area before you need to find ways to expand - and capitalism is about growth, and hence, expansion.

The individual/private ownership focus of capitalism makes it incompatible with freedom - and freedom is incompatible with capitalistic entities whom grow large enough to need restraints. Lobbying for more prisoners to fill your private, for profit prison enterprise? Hardly seems like something a 'free society' might do. Unless the freedom belongs to that corporation and the lawyers, but not to the people they govern and house.

In capitalism, dollars have power over the people that own them - ownership has power - if you don't own, you're the one being owned, and if you own enough, the state can be purchased, disempowered, or otherwise manipulated. Clearly not a democratic situation. Looking at most people's work relationships, most people go to work for an 'owner' and own nothing of the enterprise they are devoting their lives to - the people do not end up owning the fruits of their own production, private enterprise does - shareholders and executives do.

Which one is the shittier person: the enabler, or the guy who would let the misery end?

Bronyism is about banding together of social misfits into a mutual hugbox where social retardation as depicted in the cartoon series is the norm. In a sense, they're live-action roleplaying, except it's all too real because most of them are actually autistic or otherwise loose in the head. They're kinda like a cult that teaches its members to behave in a certain manner to belong, and when that clashes with the norms of society they call you a martyr and hug you even tighter so you wouldn't leave, defining it as a virtue to behave in an ill manner.

The kid just wanted to belong in a group, but the group molded him into a freak - and now they're trying to appear as the good guy here, when in fact their indoctrination was the reason why the kid is in the hospital in the first place.